The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not appropriate for resolving contractual disputes involving contested factual questions. The ruling upholds existing Supreme Court precedent, confirms the limited scope of writ remedy in private contract cases, and serves as binding authority for similar cases in the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/2673/2021 of DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED Vs CHHATTISGRARH HOUSING BOARD |
| CNR | CGHC010110072021 |
| Date of Registration | 30-06-2021 |
| Decision Date | 11-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh High Court and subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents on maintainability of writs in contractual disputes with disputed facts |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law, Contract law, Civil procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether disputed questions of fact arising out of contractual claims for payment can be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court under Article 226 should not entertain writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact, particularly in purely contractual matters with no statutory flavour. Existing Supreme Court judgments clearly establish that such disputed factual matters are better suited to civil courts or agreed forums such as arbitration. The writ remedy is not proper where the matter requires examination of evidence and cannot be resolved solely on affidavits or undisputed documents. Only in cases where the facts are not contentious or negligence is apparent on the face of the record can the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 be invoked. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to pursue alternate remedies as available under the law. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents consistently hold that where disputed questions of fact are involved, writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum, especially for contractual disputes that do not implicate statutory obligations. The principle that adjudication of such disputes requires appreciation of evidence under civil or arbitral procedures, rather than summary consideration in a writ, has been reaffirmed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a contractor, sought directions under Article 226 to compel the respondent housing board to release alleged outstanding payments under two separate construction contracts. The authority withheld payments on grounds that the petitioner did not construct certain compound walls, which the petitioner asserted were outside the contract’s scope. The petitioner had already received most payments and completion certificates, and defect liability periods had expired, but the respondent maintained that the remaining work was not completed as per contract terms. The dispute thus centred on whether the construction of compound walls was included in the contract, a contested factual issue. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court in similar contexts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court has reaffirmed that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable where resolution of the matter hinges on disputed contractual facts.
- The Court followed and applied recent as well as previous Supreme Court precedent making clear that determinations about contract scope or execution requiring factual investigation must go before the civil courts or to alternate dispute resolution forums, rather than be summarily adjudicated in writ proceedings.
- Petitioners seeking straightforward enforcement of contract payments should ensure their claim involves no contested facts if pursuing writ jurisdiction.
- Lawyers should pay careful attention to the evidentiary record and admissions/denials in contractual disputes before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench held that invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve contractual payment disputes is inappropriate where there are disputed facts (e.g., whether claimed work is within contract scope or whether performance is complete).
- The court extensively cited Supreme Court decisions, including Chairman, GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das (1999), S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana (2005), Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam (2021), Union of India v. Puna Hinda (2021), and M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (2023). All these authorities hold that writ courts should not attempt to decide contested questions of fact, particularly in cases of compensation or contract, and should relegate such issues to civil courts or agreed arbitral forums.
- The judgment rationalised that disputed interpretation of contract terms (here, about the compound wall) would necessarily require appreciation of evidence, including scope/specifications, which could not be resolved by affidavit and record alone.
- The Court emphasized that the existence of alternative civil or arbitral remedies further supports non-interference under Article 226 in such fact-intensive contractual matters.
- Liberty to pursue alternate remedies was expressly preserved for the petitioner.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Successfully completed all contract work and obtained work completion certificates.
- Contended that construction of the compound wall was not part of the contract.
- Argued that withholding payments on this ground is vexatious and frivolous.
- Relied on judgment in M/s Mahavir Coal and Transport v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Respondent
- Argued that writ petitions are not maintainable due to disputed questions of fact.
- Asserted that only the work actually completed was paid for, and payments were withheld for incomplete work (compound wall), which was included in contract scope.
- Noted that the petitioner accepted the final bill without objecting to the withholding at that stage.
Factual Background
- The petitioner, Dee Vee Projects Limited, was awarded two construction contracts by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board for housing projects at Chilhati (Bilaspur) and Parsada (Durg).
- Under both contracts, the petitioner completed the specified construction and was issued work completion certificates. The defect liability period expired with no reported construction defects.
- The Housing Board withheld final amounts from payments in both contracts, alleging non-construction of compound walls, which the petitioner claimed was not within the scope of either contract.
- The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking directions for release of outstanding payments and interest.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, reaffirming settled law regarding the limits of writ jurisdiction.
- Supreme Court precedents were cited to underscore that Article 226 is not the appropriate recourse where disputes require resolution of contested facts, especially in matters arising purely from contract (without statutory implications).
- No statutory reading down or constitutional provisions apart from Article 226 were discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or guidelines were prescribed by the court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.